Catch shares, fisheries, and ecological stewardship: a comparative analysis of resource responses to a rights‐based policy instrument
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Rights‐based approaches are potentially promising tools to meet conservation objectives in natural resource management. Here, we evaluated how population status and fishery production respond to catch shares, a rights‐based policy instrument in fisheries whereby participants are granted a right to harvest a fraction of the allowable catch. By analyzing time series of landings, exploitation rate, and population biomass for >150 fisheries, we find that catch shares tended to dampen variance in fishery landings and exploitation rate, that they had no effect on population biomass, and that the responses were unrelated to population status prior to catch shares. Variance dampening was strongest when harvesting rights were durable and secure but was absent otherwise. Reductions in exploitation rate were strongest in multispecies fisheries with high levels of at‐sea observers. Although benefits are not guaranteed, successful catch share programs share common elements that can be incorporated in the design of future programs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it